Haryana

StateCommission

A/628/2015

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDERJEET SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

R.C.GUPTA

11 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                              

                                                         First Appeal No.628 of 2015

Date of Institution: 16/28.07.2015                                                               Date of Decision: 11.08.2016

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional office, situated at near General Bus stand, Hisar Road, Sirsa,Tehsil and Distt.Sirsa through its Divisional now, through its authorized signatory of Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant

 

Versus

 

Inderjeet Singh, now aged about 42 years S/o Sh.Jai Dayal Singh, r/o Village Moriwala, Tehsil and Distt.Sirsa.

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri R.C.Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Ravi Sodhi, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

          It was alleged by the complainant that his truck bearing registration No.57/4207 (Tralla) was insured with opposite party (O.P.)-appellant for Rs.12,50,400/- and the policy was valid from 24.05.2012 to 23.05.2013.  On 30.06.2012 at about 11.00 P.M. he parked the truck at Petrol pump, Ding Road, Sirsa, but, in the morning that was found stolen. When truck could not be traced on the next day he lodged FIR with the police on 02.07.2012. Case was sent untraced by Ilaqa Magistrate vide order dated 04.03.2013.  He submitted claim before the O.P., but, the same was repudiated without any reasonable ground.

2.      In reply, it was alleged by O.P. that there was delay of two days in giving information about the theft. The owner did not take proper care of the vehicle because it was left unattended with key in the ignition point.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 25.05.2015 and directed as under:-

“Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite party to pay insured amount of Rs.12,50,400/- to the complainant, with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of theft i.e. dated 30.06.2012, till payment. The complainant is also hereby allowed compensation of Rs.10,000/- for his harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses of Rs.2200/- against the opposite party.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there was delay of two days in lodging FIR, whereas it should have been lodged immediately.  As per statement of insured, given to surveyor, he left the truck unattended with the ignition key.  In this way he did not take proper care of the vehicle and violated condition No.5 of Insurance policy Ex.R-8.  Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration this aspect and wrongly awarded the compensation. So impugned order be set aside.

7.      This argument is of no avail.  From the perusal of FIR Ex.P-1 it is clear that the same was lodged with all promptness on 02.07.2012 just after one day of incident. There was no inordinate delay in lodging FIR.  Further, it cannot be presumed that the complainant left the vehicle unattended at a deserted place.  He parked his truck at petrol pump, which cannot be considered as deserted place.  He left key of the truck in the tool box and it cannot be considered as negligence.

8.      More-so, statement Ex.R-6 alleged to be made to surveyor, cannot be used against him because neither the surveyor was produced to prove the same nor that statement was put to complainant.  It was the duty of the insurance company to prove the statement made by the complainant to surveyor. If it is a part of surveyor report,  it cannot be presumed that the same is duly proved.  So it cannot be observed that there was any negligence on the part of the complainant.  Even if the key was left in the truck it cannot be presumed that the insured did not take proper care because the key was not left in the ignition point but in the tool box of the truck.  The learned District Forum rightly came to conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of the complainant/insured and he was entitled for compensation, as mentioned therein. The findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

August 11th, 2016

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl. Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member, Addl. Bench

S.K.